[Bug 812121] Review Request: python-kmod - Load, unload list kernel modules from Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812121 Andy Grover agro...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-08-07 19:55:44 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 812132] Review Request: python-lvm - Python module to use LVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812132 Andy Grover agro...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-08-07 19:56:08 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844817] Review Request: rubygem-openshift-origin-dns-bind - OpenShift plugin for BIND service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844817 --- Comment #6 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- Hi, Please don't fix the wrong-file-end-of-line problems on the gems. On one of my other reviews Vic stated that this is a false positive on ruby gems and that he is working on fixing rpmlint. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831749#c31 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839142] Review Request: python-urllib2_kerberos - Kerberos over HTTP Negotiate/SPNEGO support for urllib2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839142 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Matěj: For folks that need sponsoring, the review should be done by a sponsor. ;) This is a pretty simple package, but I can go ahead and sponsor you. If you have any questions please contact me... I'll let Jason review your other submission when he gets back. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 819687] Review Request: python-rtkit - Python Api for Request Tracker's REST interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=819687 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #17 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com --- Removing needsponsor, I have sponsored Tomas. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760696] Review Request: rubygem-mongo - Ruby driver for the MongoDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760696 --- Comment #14 from Troy Dawson tdaw...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-mongo/rubygem-mongo.spec SRPM URL: http://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-mongo/rubygem-mongo-1.4.0-6.fc18.src.rpm - Added tests (%check section) - removed %doc label from mongo.gemspec and Rakefile - rubygem-mongo has to be the same version rubygem-bson. Right now that version is 1.4.0 for Fedora 17 and 18. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839142] Review Request: python-urllib2_kerberos - Kerberos over HTTP Negotiate/SPNEGO support for urllib2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839142 Tomas Dabašinskas tdaba...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846481] Review Request: cantata - Client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846481 Lameire Alexis alexisis-pristont...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846481] Review Request: cantata - Client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846481
Lameire Alexis alexisis-pristont...@hotmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexisis-pristontale@hotmai
||l.com
--- Comment #1 from Lameire Alexis alexisis-pristont...@hotmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[?]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
need verbose logging
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[!]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
Note : GPLv2, GPLv3 detected and LGPL, some obscure file is bad detected,
can you confirm that file is unused into fedore. In this case you must also
retar the archive without the non free files.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[!]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
The compilation is not verbose, you can export the VERBOSE=1 or pass it to
make to tell cmake to be more verbose on compil time
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
libmaia is bundeled and compiled, you must patch the CMakelist to don't
use it and remove it befere compile time
[X]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[!]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
same issue as licence contant, but you must remove file relative to ffmpeg
build.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[X]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[!]: MUST Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if
there is such a file.
you must folow the desktop guidelines and update the ican database :
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache and
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database)
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[X]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[?]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
must enable verbose compiling message.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[X]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GENERATED FILE, *No copyright* UNKNOWN, UNKNOWN, BSD (2 clause),
GPL (v2 or later), GPL (v3 or later), BSD (3 clause), LGPL (v2),
*No copyright* GENERATED FILE, LGPL (v2.1 or later) For detailed
[X]: MUST The spec file handles locales properly.
[X]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[X]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[X]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[X]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[X]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: MUST Package installs properly.
[Bug 846481] Review Request: cantata - Client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846481 Lameire Alexis alexisis-pristont...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Lameire Alexis alexisis-pristont...@hotmail.com --- I'll make your review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846481] Review Request: cantata - Client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846481 Lameire Alexis alexisis-pristont...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alexisis-pristontale@hotmai ||l.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845852] Review Request: littleproxy - High Performance HTTP Proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845852 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- added PATCH0 for resolve this problem -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845852] Review Request: littleproxy - High Performance HTTP Proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845852 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- tested on http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4367834 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846540] New: Review Request: sisu-maven-plugin - Sisu plugin for Apache Maven
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846540 Bug ID: 846540 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: sisu-maven-plugin - Sisu plugin for Apache Maven Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mizde...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/sisu-maven-plugin/sisu-maven-plugin-1.1-1.fc18.spec SRPM URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/sisu-maven-plugin/sisu-maven-plugin-1.1-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: The Sisu Plugin for Maven provides mojos to generate META-INF/sisu/javax.inject.Named index files for the Sisu container. Fedora Account System Username: mizdebsk -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846540] Review Request: sisu-maven-plugin - Sisu plugin for Apache Maven
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846540 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845379] Review Request: eclipse-swtbot - UI and functional testing tool for SWT and Eclipse based applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845379 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: eclipse-swtbot Short Description: UI and functional testing tool for SWT and Eclipse based applications Owners: akurtakov Branches: f17 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839056] Review Request: python-flake8 - code checking using pep8 and pyflakes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839056 --- Comment #2 from Pierre-YvesChibon pin...@pingoured.fr --- ping ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846556] New: Review Request: sonatype-plugins-parent - Sonatype Plugins Parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846556 Bug ID: 846556 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: sonatype-plugins-parent - Sonatype Plugins Parent POM Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mizde...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/sonatype-plugins-parent/sonatype-plugins-parent-8-1.fc19.spec SRPM URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/sonatype-plugins-parent/sonatype-plugins-parent-8-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: This package provides Sonatype plugins parent POM used by other Sonatype packages. Fedora Account System Username: mizdebsk -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846558] New: Review Request: sonatype-forge-parent - Sonatype Forge Parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846558 Bug ID: 846558 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: sonatype-forge-parent - Sonatype Forge Parent POM Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mizde...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/sonatype-forge-parent/sonatype-forge-parent-12-1.fc19.spec SRPM URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/sonatype-forge-parent/sonatype-forge-parent-12-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: This package provides Sonatype forge parent POM used by other Sonatype packages. Fedora Account System Username: mizdebsk -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841662] Review Request: php-pecl-cairo - PHP cairo extension module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841662
Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com
--- Comment #4 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I am curious about some of the changes I needed to make to have the %setup
-q -c work. Because of that line I had to do cd Cairo-%{version} in
basically every section including the %files for documentation. I looked at
the %setup macros but didn't find anything that would what was needed. I
hope this is okay the way it is. Not really sure.
Yes, this is ok
(the only solution I know, and used by others pear/pecl extensions, as
documented in the Guidelines)
You don't need to use pre-version release (0.3). Version 0.3.2 is the final
published version (even if state is beta, but this is about code stability,
not about versionning). See xdebug for pre-version example
http://pecl.php.net/package/xdebug.
= Release 1%{?dist}
I would prefer you to create to cairo.ini in %prep and install it in %install
This is cleaner, and make simpler if you need it twice (if one day, you choose
to also build the zts extension). Just a cosmetic change.
%defattr(-,root,root,-) is EL-5 only, should be removed
%global php_apiver .. is not used, should be removed
- Own php/etc/cairo dir
= typo : /usr/include/php/ext/cairo
But this dir must be owned by -devel. So, this is enough:
%{_includedir}/php/ext/%{pecl_name}
Have you test build under various version / arch ?
When I first build this extension, few month ago, I notice some test failure ?
Will do the formal review soon.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846558] Review Request: sonatype-forge-parent - Sonatype Forge Parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846558 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG), 846556 Whiteboard||Trivial -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846556] Review Request: sonatype-plugins-parent - Sonatype Plugins Parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846556 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Whiteboard||Trivial -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845799] Review Request: rubygem-hashr - Simple Hash extension to make working with nested hashes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845799
--- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
* Use %global instead of %define
- Unless there is any special need, the %global macro should be used in place
of %define according to FPG [1]
* Test suite
- It would be nice to execute a test suite of the gem.
* License
- According to README.md and MIT-LICENSE files, the license should be MIT
* -doc subpackage
- Have you considered to move the documentation into -doc subpackage?
* Please use the new RubyGems packaging macros [2]
- It would be nice to use the macros available for gem packaging.
- For RHEL, you can use [3] as an example and optionally comment on Bug
788001
to push these macros into RHEL ;)
* RHEL and older Fedora release conditioning
- Please consider to use %if 0%{?el6}%{?fc16} macros instead of wordy
%if 0%{?rhel} == 6 || 0%{?fedora} 17
* Exclude gemcache
- We typically exclude the cached version of gem, such as:
%exclude %{gem_cache}
I would stop at this point and wait for fixes from your side. Thank you.
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Macros
[3]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rubygem-hydra.git/tree/rubygem-hydra.spec
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846540] Review Request: sisu-maven-plugin - Sisu plugin for Apache Maven
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846540 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||846556 Whiteboard||Trivial --- Comment #1 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- * Wed Aug 8 2012 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com - 1.1-2 - Added parent POM dependency Spec URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/sisu-maven-plugin/sisu-maven-plugin-1.1-2.fc19.spec SRPM URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/sisu-maven-plugin/sisu-maven-plugin-1.1-2.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846556] Review Request: sonatype-plugins-parent - Sonatype Plugins Parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846556 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||846540 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846561] New: Review Request: groovy-gram - Gram = Groovy + JAM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846561 Bug ID: 846561 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: groovy-gram - Gram = Groovy + JAM Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: punto...@libero.it Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/groovy-gram.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/groovy-gram-1.2-0.1.20120529.fc16.src.rpm Description: Gram is a metadata processing engine for Groovy. Fedora Account System Username: gil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846562] New: Review Request: nqp - Not Quite Perl (6)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846562 Bug ID: 846562 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: nqp - Not Quite Perl (6) Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: g...@zimt.uni-siegen.de Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.perl.uni-siegen.de/review/nqp_1.spec SRPM URL: http://www.perl.uni-siegen.de/review/nqp-0.0.2012.07-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: This is Not Quite Perl -- a compiler for quickly generating PIR routines from Perl6-like code. The key feature of NQP is that it's designed to be a very small compiler (as compared with, say, perl6 or Rakudo) and is focused on being a high-level way to create compilers and libraries for virtual machines (such as the Parrot Virtual Machine [1]). Unlike a full-fledged implementation of Perl 6, NQP strives to have as small a runtime footprint as it can, while still providing a Perl 6 object model and regular expression engine for the virtual machine. Fedora Account System Username: gerd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846556] Review Request: sonatype-plugins-parent - Sonatype Plugins Parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846556 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||846558 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841662] Review Request: php-pecl-cairo - PHP cairo extension module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841662 --- Comment #5 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Looking at config.m4 : this package requires php 5.2.0 (despite web site says 5.1.6) and freetype library, so need BuildRequires: php-devel = 5.2.0 BuildRequires: freetype-devel Freetype is optionnal, but as available in fedora repository, I think it will be a mistake to not provide all the feature. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846558] Review Request: sonatype-forge-parent - Sonatype Forge Parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846558 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- take this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846558] Review Request: sonatype-forge-parent - Sonatype Forge Parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846558
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[-]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[-]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[!]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
Note: sonatype-forge-parent-12-1.fc19.spec should be sonatype-forge-
parent.spec
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[-]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[Bug 846558] Review Request: sonatype-forge-parent - Sonatype Forge Parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846558 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- *** APPROVED *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846558] Review Request: sonatype-forge-parent - Sonatype Forge Parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846558 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846558] Review Request: sonatype-forge-parent - Sonatype Forge Parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846558 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846558] Review Request: sonatype-forge-parent - Sonatype Forge Parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846558 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: sonatype-forge-parent Short Description: Sonatype Forge Parent POM Owners: mizdebsk Branches: f18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846558] Review Request: sonatype-forge-parent - Sonatype Forge Parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846558
--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[-]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[-]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[-]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[!]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
Note: sonatype-forge-parent-12-1.fc19.spec should be sonatype-forge-
parent.spec
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[-]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[Bug 737735] Review Request: google-authenticator - One-time passcode support using open standards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737735 Floren Munteanu ad...@yqed.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ad...@yqed.com --- Comment #9 from Floren Munteanu ad...@yqed.com --- I don't think this is the proper approach. Please read my comment: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754978#c25 Regards, Floren munteanu -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 737735] Review Request: google-authenticator - One-time passcode support using open standards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737735 --- Comment #10 from Floren Munteanu ad...@yqed.com --- I don't think this is the proper approach. Please read my comment: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754978#c25 Regards, Floren Munteanu -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846562] Review Request: nqp - Not Quite Perl (6)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846562 --- Comment #1 from Gerd Pokorra g...@zimt.uni-siegen.de --- A successful scratch build in rawhide is at: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4365294 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845596] Review Request: jackrabbit - Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845596 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||846597 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846597] Review Request: gooddata-cl - GoodData integration toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846597 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||845596 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846597] New: Review Request: gooddata-cl - GoodData integration toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846597 Bug ID: 846597 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: gooddata-cl - GoodData integration toolkit Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: lkund...@v3.sk Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/gooddata-cl.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/gooddata-cl-1.2.56-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: This is GoodData data integration toolkit. The toolkit contains data modeling, transformation and loading utilities that work on top of the GoodData REST APIs. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846597] Review Request: gooddata-cl - GoodData integration toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846597 --- Comment #1 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk --- This was already reviewed once. It was retired in bug #843227 because it FTBFS, pending for a new dependency bug #845596 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 760696] Review Request: rubygem-mongo - Ruby driver for the MongoDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=760696 --- Comment #15 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #14) - Added tests (%check section) Hrm, although you added tests, you should ensure that they are executable in mock. There is no BR for rubygem(minitest), so the build fails as soon as it hits the %check section. I guess that additionally you'll need also BR: rubygem-bson, rubygem-shoulda and rubygem-mocha. Nevertheless, I am afraid that you will need also setup MongoDB, so I am not sure if that will be possible. But it would be nice to have some (even) conditionally executable test suite anyway. Here [1] is how to use mock. It will help you to build the RPM locally in isolated environment. - rubygem-mongo has to be the same version rubygem-bson. Right now that version is 1.4.0 for Fedora 17 and 18. Well, nothing easier than bump the version of bson in Rawhide. I'm going to do it right now. And since you are already sponsored, you can ask for ACL in pkgdb to do it yourself when needed ;) [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Mock_to_test_package_builds#How_do_I_use_Mock.3F -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846562] Review Request: nqp - Not Quite Perl (6)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846562 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mmasl...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833494] Review Request: gshell - A command-line shell framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833494 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mizde...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mizde...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- I am taking this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833494] Review Request: gshell - A command-line shell framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833494 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i ||t) --- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- Fails to build from source: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4367956 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844080] Review Request: libmatecomponent -- Libraries for matecomponent package of MATE-Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844080 --- Comment #11 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/libmatecomponent.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/libmatecomponent-1.4.0-3.fc17.src.rpm Description: Libraries for matecomponent package of MATE-Desktop -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 821094] Review Request: scamper - A network measurement tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821094 --- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- (In reply to comment #3) The build fails in Rawhide: In file included from ../utils.c:62:0: /usr/include/sys/sysctl.h:63:25: fatal error: bits/sysctl.h: No such file or directory http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4367969 A new snapshot is available, by the way. Thanks for the hint. Updated files: Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/scamper.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/scamper-0-0.3.20111202c.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828809] Review Request: drupal6-emfield - Embedded Media Field module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828809
Wesley Hearn whe...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Wesley Hearn whe...@redhat.com ---
[04:14 AM]
[0]whearn@Pluto:~/rpmbuild/SOURCES $ curl
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/emfield-6.x-2.5.tar.gz | sha256sum
% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current
Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed
100 203k 100 203k0 0 256k 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 306k
4c7c27819c1ef0387e51fa87557662c3e9c47145625cca2a6c018eeffcc20659 -
[04:14 AM]
[0]whearn@Pluto:~/rpmbuild/SOURCES $ sha256sum emfield-6.x-2.5.tar.gz
4c7c27819c1ef0387e51fa87557662c3e9c47145625cca2a6c018eeffcc20659
emfield-6.x-2.5.tar.gz
[04:17 AM]
[0]whearn@Pluto:/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/result $ rpmlint
drupal6-emfield-2.5-3.fc17.*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[O] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[O] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[O] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. .
[O] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[O] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[O] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[O] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[O] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[O] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[O] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
[O] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[O] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[O] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[O] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[O] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[O] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[O] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[O] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[O] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[O] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[O] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[O] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[O] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[O] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
[O] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[O] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
[O] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa}
[Bug 838901] Review Request: autotest-framework - Framework for fully automated testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838901 --- Comment #14 from Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com --- rpmlint output still lists some isssues, for example: the non-executable-script error could be avoided with http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries but that's not a blocker. Ralf, do you have any other notes ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 844080] Review Request: libmatecomponent -- Libraries for matecomponent package of MATE-Desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844080 --- Comment #12 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- $ rpmlint libmatecomponent.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint libmatecomponent-1.4.0-3.fc17.src.rpm libmatecomponent.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) matecomponent - mate component, mate-component, component libmatecomponent.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matecomponent - mate component, mate-component, component 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 759855] Review Request: sslh - A SSL/SSH multiplexer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759855 Kit Gerrits kitgerr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kitgerr...@gmail.com --- Comment #18 from Kit Gerrits kitgerr...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #17) and preuninstall can be: if [ $1 = 0 ]; then /sbin/service sslh stop /dev/null 21 /sbin/chkconfig --del sslh fi This not only deletes the initscript but also all the symlinks pointing to it in the different runlevels. I thought 'chkconfig --add' and 'chkconfig --del' only added and removed links in /etc/rc*..d/ ? AFAIK, /etc/init.d/sslh still needs to be removed by hand / packages. After placing the file in /etc/init.d, I useally do 'chkconfig --add service' and 'service service start'. (currently, this points to systemd) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846212] Review Request: libumberlog - CEE-enhanced syslog API library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846212
--- Comment #11 from Christophe Burgun jo...@fedoraproject.org ---
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
Do you know how to test your lib ?
I have install it but don't know how to test it
The package includes a test suite run during %check; you can look in the t
subdirectory for example uses if you wanted to write your own tests.
Alternatively, run (LD_PRELOAD=/path/to/libumberlog.so
some_program_that_creates_syslog_records) and see that the records have been
converted to the CEE format, but we want to discourage this usage.
Hi Milan,
The library works fine
tail -f /var/log/secure
Aug 8 11:21:02 taygeta sshd[16741]: @cee:{msg:fatal: Cannot bind any
address.,pid:16741,facility:authpriv,priority:crit,program:sshd,uid:0,gid:0,host:taygeta.fr117.corpintra.net,timestamp:2012-08-08T11:21:02.936744010+0200}
But you need :
1) Fix License in spec file (BSD and CCPL licence)
2)Delete in spec Requires:/sbin/ldconfig
because it is do automatically
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833494] Review Request: gshell - A command-line shell framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833494 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i | |t) | --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gshell/1/gshell.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gshell/1/gshell-2.6.5-2.fc16.src.rpm - Added missing buildrequires mojo-signatures - Disabled animal-sniffer-maven-plugin (conflict with asm packages) tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4368074 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845379] Review Request: eclipse-swtbot - UI and functional testing tool for SWT and Eclipse based applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845379 --- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com --- ah f18 has branched New Package SCM Request === Package Name: eclipse-swtbot Short Description: UI and functional testing tool for SWT and Eclipse based applications Owners: akurtakov Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 759855] Review Request: sslh - A SSL/SSH multiplexer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759855 --- Comment #19 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com --- SPEC URL: http://wangee.opsyx.com/sslh.spec SRPM URL: http://wangee.opsyx.com/sslh-1.10-4.fc16.src.rpm I can't access these. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 759855] Review Request: sslh - A SSL/SSH multiplexer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759855 --- Comment #20 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com --- I would suggest continuing the usual practice of using chkconfig and service to do this: That's correct. For = EL6 it needs to follow these guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript Please also ensure that for Fedora the package is using the latest guidlines for systemd. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833494] Review Request: gshell - A command-line shell framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833494
Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i
||t)
--- Comment #5 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[!]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Java
[x]:
[Bug 833494] Review Request: gshell - A command-line shell framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833494 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i | |t) | --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gshell/2/gshell.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gshell/2/gshell-2.6.5-3.fc16.src.rpm - Installed LICENSE.txt NOTICE.txt in each package - edit package description -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846660] New: Review Request: mate-dialogs -- Display dialog boxes from shell scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846660 Bug ID: 846660 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: 17 Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: mate-dialogs -- Display dialog boxes from shell scripts Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: dan.mas...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/mate-dialogs.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/mate-dialogs-1.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Fork of gdialog. Displays dialog boxes from shell scripts. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846660] Review Request: mate-dialogs -- Display dialog boxes from shell scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846660 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||840149 (MATE-DE-tracker) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840149] Tracker for MATE packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840149 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||846660 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828458] Review Request: drupal6-menu_block - Menu block module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828458 Wesley Hearn whe...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||whe...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|whe...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828444] Review Request: drupal6-context_menu_block - Context Menu Block Module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828444 Wesley Hearn whe...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||828458 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828458] Review Request: drupal6-menu_block - Menu block module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828458 Wesley Hearn whe...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||828444 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846661] New: Review Request: libmatenotify - Libraries for mate notify
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846661 Bug ID: 846661 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: libmatenotify - Libraries for mate notify Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: dan.mas...@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/libmatenotify.spec SRPM URL: http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/materpms/srpms/libmatenotify-1.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Libraries for mate notify. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845799] Review Request: rubygem-hashr - Simple Hash extension to make working with nested hashes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845799
--- Comment #3 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com ---
Updated:
Spec URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rubygem-hashr/rubygem-hashr.spec
SRPM URL:
http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rubygem-hashr/rubygem-hashr-0.0.21-2.fc17.src.rpm
Fixed:
* Use %global instead of %define
* Test suite
* License
* -doc subpackage
* Please use the new RubyGems packaging macros
ad /Please consider to use %if 0%{?el6}%{?fc16} macros instead of wordy
%if 0%{?rhel} == 6 || 0%{?fedora} 17/
I do not like the shorter notation. It is less readable and thefore
maintainable (of course IMHO).
And while 0%{?fedora} 17 works for Fedora 15, shorter notation %{?fc16}. I
know that F15 is not supported, but still.. I simply like the longer notation.
* Exclude gemcache
per our IRC discussion I will keep it here. I like the sideefect of
repackaging, where - in case package will get patch - the repackage gem
contains those patch(es) and developers, which develop for Fedora on their
macs, can use this gem, which contains these patch(es).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846660] Review Request: mate-dialogs -- Display dialog boxes from shell scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846660 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Version|17 |rawhide Alias||mate-dialogs -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846661] Review Request: libmatenotify - Libraries for mate notify
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846661 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||846660 (mate-dialogs) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846660] Review Request: mate-dialogs -- Display dialog boxes from shell scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846660 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||846661 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846661] Review Request: libmatenotify - Libraries for mate notify
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846661 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||libmatenotify -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846661] Review Request: libmatenotify - Libraries for mate notify
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846661 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dw...@infradead.org Component|Package Review |0x Blocks||840149 (MATE-DE-tracker) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 840149] Tracker for MATE packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840149 Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||846661 (libmatenotify) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846660] Review Request: mate-dialogs -- Display dialog boxes from shell scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846660 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- I shall review this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846662] New: Review Request: eclipse-ecf - Eclipse Communication Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846662 Bug ID: 846662 QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: nott...@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: eclipse-ecf - Eclipse Communication Framework Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: kdan...@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://kdaniel.fedorapeople.org/ecj/eclipse-ecf.spec SRPM URL: http://kdaniel.fedorapeople.org/ecj/eclipse-ecf-3.5.6-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: ECF bundles required by eclipse-platform. Fedora Account System Username: kdaniel, akurtako -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846661] Review Request: libmatenotify - Libraries for mate notify
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846661 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com Component|0x |Package Review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846661] Review Request: libmatenotify - Libraries for mate notify
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846661 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- I'll review this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846562] Review Request: nqp - Not Quite Perl (6)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846562 --- Comment #2 from Gerd Pokorra g...@zimt.uni-siegen.de --- I fixed an error in the description. I put the new spec file and new SRPM on our FTP-server. So the new URLs of it are: Spec: http://ftp.uni-siegen.de/review/nqp_2.spec SRPM: http://ftp.uni-siegen.de/review/nqp-0.0.2012.07-2.fc17.src.rpm During the review http://ftp.uni-siegen.de/review/nqp.spec will always be a link to the latest spec file version. Now my rpmlint output is: rpmlint /home/gz016/rpmbuild/SRPMS/nqp-0.0.2012.07-2.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint /home/gz016/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/nqp-0.0.2012.07-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm nqp.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/parrot/4.6.0/dynext/nqp_dyncall_ops.so nqp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nqp 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint /home/gz016/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/nqp-debuginfo-0.0.2012.07-2.fc17.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint nqp.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846662] Review Request: eclipse-ecf - Eclipse Communication Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846662 Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||akurt...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com --- I'll do it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833494] Review Request: gshell - A command-line shell framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833494 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- Accepted. Tested on Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4368261 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint gshell-2.6.5-3.fc18.noarch.rpm gshell-2.6.5-3.fc18.src.rpm gshell-maven-plugin-2.6.5-3.fc18.noarch.rpm gshell-javadoc-2.6.5-3.fc18.noarch.rpm gshell.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US gshell.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gshell-2.6.5-src-git.tar.gz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint gshell-javadoc gshell-maven-plugin gshell 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 833494] Review Request: gshell - A command-line shell framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833494 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 784359] Review Request: qpid-gui-tools - GUI utilities for Red Hat MRG qpid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784359 Ernie eal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Flags|needinfo?(eal...@redhat.com | |) | Last Closed||2012-08-08 08:11:44 --- Comment #24 from Ernie eal...@redhat.com --- Closing. Marking as dependent on FE-DEADREVIEW. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846662] Review Request: eclipse-ecf - Eclipse Communication Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846662
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
UNKNOWN, *No copyright* UNKNOWN, Apache (v2.0) GENERATED FILE,
Apache (v2.0)
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (R-Release_HEAD-sdk_feature-77_2012-06-10_19-42-02.tar.bz2)
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in
[Bug 845799] Review Request: rubygem-hashr - Simple Hash extension to make working with nested hashes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845799
--- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Fixed:
* Use %global instead of %define
* Test suite
* License
* -doc subpackage
* Please use the new RubyGems packaging macros
Thank you.
ad /Please consider to use %if 0%{?el6}%{?fc16} macros instead of wordy
%if 0%{?rhel} == 6 || 0%{?fedora} 17/
I do not like the shorter notation. It is less readable and thefore
maintainable (of course IMHO).
And while 0%{?fedora} 17 works for Fedora 15, shorter notation %{?fc16}. I
know that F15 is not supported, but still.. I simply like the longer
notation.
Ok, no problem.
* Exclude gemcache
per our IRC discussion I will keep it here. I like the sideefect of
repackaging, where - in case package will get patch - the repackage gem
contains those patch(es) and developers, which develop for Fedora on their
macs, can use this gem, which contains these patch(es).
This is not show stopper, but something which should be re-discussed at
Ruby-SIG. Any input is welcome.
* Do not own the whole %{gem_instdir}
- I would suggest to be more specific and instead of %{gem_instdir} use
%dir %{gem_instdir}. This is a bit more work, but it will allow you to spot
some major changes when updating the gem.
- This is not show stopper, but I'd like you to consider it.
* Test suite execution
- You can simplify the test suite execution command:
testrb -Ilib test/*_test.rb
* Non-essential files should be moved to -doc subpackage
- Please move the test suite into -doc subpackage, since it is not needed for
runtime
- Please move Gemfile*, Rakefile and README.md as well
* The -doc subpackage should require the main package
- Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828879] Review Request: system-storage-manager - A single tool to manage your storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828879 --- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 839142] Review Request: python-urllib2_kerberos - Kerberos over HTTP Negotiate/SPNEGO support for urllib2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839142 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Unorphaned devel. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845379] Review Request: eclipse-swtbot - UI and functional testing tool for SWT and Eclipse based applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845379 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846558] Review Request: sonatype-forge-parent - Sonatype Forge Parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846558 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846662] Review Request: eclipse-ecf - Eclipse Communication Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846662 --- Comment #3 from Krzysztof Daniel kdan...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://kdaniel.fedorapeople.org/ecj/v2/eclipse-ecf.spec SRPM URL: http://kdaniel.fedorapeople.org/ecj/v2/eclipse-ecf-3.5.6-2.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846661] Review Request: libmatenotify - Libraries for mate notify
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846661
--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com ---
[+] OK
[-] NA
[?] Issue
[+] Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
[+] Spec file matches base package name.
[?] Spec has consistent macro usage.
Please use either $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}, not both.
[+] Meets Packaging Guidelines.
[+] License
[+] License field in spec matches
[+] License file included in package
See if you can request upstream to correct the FSF address in the next release?
Not really a blocker, but an important change.
[ankur@ankur libmatenotify-1.4.0]$ !find
find . -name * -execdir licensecheck '{}' \; | sed -e '/UNKNOWN/ d' -e
'/GENERATED FILE/ d'
./tests/test-replace-widget.c: *No copyright* LGPL (with incorrect FSF address)
./tests/test-basic.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./tests/test-multi-actions.c: LGPL (with incorrect FSF address)
./tests/test-server-info.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./tests/test-replace.c: *No copyright* LGPL (with incorrect FSF address)
./tests/test-xy-actions.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./tests/test-urgency.c: LGPL (with incorrect FSF address)
./tests/test-error.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./tests/test-markup.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./tests/test-xy.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./tests/test-xy-stress.c: LGPL (with incorrect FSF address)
./tests/test-image.c: LGPL (with incorrect FSF address)
./tests/test-size-changes.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./tests/test-rtl.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./tests/test-default-action.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)
./test-replace-widget.c: *No copyright* LGPL (with incorrect FSF address)
./test-basic.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./test-multi-actions.c: LGPL (with incorrect FSF address)
./test-server-info.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./test-replace.c: *No copyright* LGPL (with incorrect FSF address)
./test-xy-actions.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./test-urgency.c: LGPL (with incorrect FSF address)
./test-error.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./test-markup.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./test-xy.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./test-xy-stress.c: LGPL (with incorrect FSF address)
./test-image.c: LGPL (with incorrect FSF address)
./test-size-changes.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./test-rtl.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./test-default-action.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./tools/notify-send.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./notify-send.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./libmatenotify/internal.h: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./libmatenotify/notification.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)
./libmatenotify/notify.h: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./libmatenotify/notification.h: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)
./libmatenotify/notify.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./internal.h: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./notify-features.h.in: GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./notification.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./notify.h: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./notification.h: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
./notify.c: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
[ankur@ankur libmatenotify-1.4.0]$
[+] Spec in American English
[+] Spec is legible.
[+] Sources match upstream md5sum:
[ankur@ankur SPECS]$ review-md5check.sh libmatenotify.spec
Getting http://pub.mate-desktop.org/releases/1.4/libmatenotify-1.4.0.tar.xz to
/tmp/review/libmatenotify-1.4.0.tar.xz
% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current
Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed
100 55276 100 552760 0 18668 0 0:00:02 0:00:02 --:--:-- 21251
2d2636ea02de669cf8a8e6163d43186b /tmp/review/libmatenotify-1.4.0.tar.xz
2d2636ea02de669cf8a8e6163d43186b
/home/ankur/rpmbuild/SOURCES/libmatenotify-1.4.0.tar.xz
removed `/tmp/review/libmatenotify-1.4.0.tar.xz'
removed directory: `/tmp/review'
[ankur@ankur SPECS]$
[-] Package needs ExcludeArch
[+] BuildRequires correct
[-] Spec handles locales/find_lang
[-] Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
[+] Package is code or permissible content.
[-] Doc subpackage needed/used.
[+] Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
[-] Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
[-] Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
[?] .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
Package needs to Requires: pkgconfig?
[+] .so files in -devel subpackage.
[?] -devel package Requires:
[Bug 846661] Review Request: libmatenotify - Libraries for mate notify
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846661 --- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 603013 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=603013action=edit Mock build.log for rawhide-x86_64 configuration. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828458] Review Request: drupal6-menu_block - Menu block module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828458
Wesley Hearn whe...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Wesley Hearn whe...@redhat.com ---
[07:34 AM]
[0]whearn@Pluto:~/rpmbuild/SOURCES $ curl
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/menu_block-6.x-2.4.tar.gz | sha256sum
% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current
Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed
100 27126 100 271260 0 49787 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 116k
532924bb138869a30a7c388723dff23d9de5757447508c140e69d65df75d69bd -
[07:35 AM]
[0]whearn@Pluto:~/rpmbuild/SOURCES $ sha256sum menu_block-6.x-2.4.tar.gz
532924bb138869a30a7c388723dff23d9de5757447508c140e69d65df75d69bd
menu_block-6.x-2.4.tar.gz
[07:37 AM]
[0]whearn@Pluto:/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/result $ rpmlint
drupal6-menu_block-2.4-3.fc17.*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[O] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[O] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[O] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. .
[O] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[O] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[O] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[O] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[O] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[O] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[O] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
[O] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[O] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[O] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[O] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[O] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[O] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[O] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[O] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[O] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[O] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[O] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[O] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[O] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[O] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
[O] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[O] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
[O] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires:
[Bug 846558] Review Request: sonatype-forge-parent - Sonatype Forge Parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846558 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == New Branches: f19 I assumed rawhide branch would be added by default, but in got error: BuildError: package sonatype-forge-parent not in list for tag f19 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4368463 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845799] Review Request: rubygem-hashr - Simple Hash extension to make working with nested hashes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845799 --- Comment #5 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com --- Thank you for your suggestion, I really appreciate it. All issues should be addressed: Spec URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rubygem-hashr/rubygem-hashr.spec SRPM URL: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rubygem-hashr/rubygem-hashr-0.0.21-3.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846661] Review Request: libmatenotify - Libraries for mate notify
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846661 --- Comment #4 from Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com --- Done as requested. http://vicodan.fedorapeople.org/matespec/libmatenotify.spec BTW mate-common SHOULD provide pkgconfg, double check me on this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 845703] Review Request: mule - Mule Enterprise Service Bus Java libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845703 Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2012-08-08 08:45:41 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 846558] Review Request: sonatype-forge-parent - Sonatype Forge Parent POM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846558 --- Comment #8 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: sonatype-forge-parent New Branches: f19 Sorry, forgot that the Package Name field was mandatory... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 828800] Review Request: drupal6-eazylaunch - Eazy Launch Module for Drupal6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828800
Wesley Hearn whe...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Wesley Hearn whe...@redhat.com ---
[08:41 AM]
[0]whearn@Pluto:~/rpmbuild/SOURCES $ sha256sum eazylaunch-6.x-1.4.tar.gz
1390a596335bd34c5c3a94e1aa20241cd1ef3d7afd7bac1c532883d058976fed
eazylaunch-6.x-1.4.tar.gz
[08:41 AM]
[0]whearn@Pluto:~/rpmbuild/SOURCES $ curl
http://ftp.drupal.org/files/projects/eazylaunch-6.x-1.4.tar.gz | sha256sum
% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current
Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed
100 14957 100 149570 0 40185 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 65889
1390a596335bd34c5c3a94e1aa20241cd1ef3d7afd7bac1c532883d058976fed -
[08:42 AM]
[0]whearn@Pluto:/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/result $ rpmlint
drupal6-eazylaunch-1.4-3.fc17.*
drupal6-eazylaunch.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Eazy - Lazy, Hazy,
Easy
drupal6-eazylaunch.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Eazy - Lazy, Hazy,
Easy
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
[O] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[O] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[O] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[O] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[O] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[O] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[O] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[O] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[O] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[O] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
[O] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[O] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[O] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[O] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[O] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[O] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[O] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[O] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[O] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)
[O] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[O] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[O] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[O] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[O] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present.
[O] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[O] MUST: Development files must
[Bug 846661] Review Request: libmatenotify - Libraries for mate notify
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846661 --- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.an...@gmail.com --- 1. Please submit updated SRPMs 2. Please add a changelog entry for all changes that you make, so we know what's happened 3. Does NOT build yet. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
